what happened on 911 - Page 12 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Dilbert1234567 · 09-10-2006, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

The source of the heat was the fire, not the beams. In order for the beams to be 1,500F, the fire needs to be at least that hot consistently enough for the heat to be transfered across the system of steel beams.

correct, but I don’t think the beam reached 1500C, from what I’ve read it was about half as hot as that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Have you ever opened your stove at 500F? It's really hot.

Darn tooting it’s hot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

So hot that one would have difficulty breathing if one stuck his head too close to the open stove.

The difficulty experienced with breathing is due to the differences in temperature of the air in your lung and the air out side, if you’ve ever worked with a kiln, you will realize that when you are around that much heat for a while, its not to much harder to breath, nothing compared to the initial trouble.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Imagine that stove was 100,000 square feet, was over 3 times as hot as that 500F stove, and the only real opening was a hole about the size of a plane and was pretty far from any entrance/exit.

The center of the oven would be that hot, not the sides, you probably know that ovens don’t all heat evenly, if you place 2 baking pans in with cookies, you need to rotate them half way through for them to cook properly. The source of heat was the fire, and it heated everything at the center, the air is easy to heat, and does not reduce the amount of heat the fire is generating much, the steel beams how ever do absorbed much more, the air is cycling through, so it never gets really hot before it cycles out of the building, maybe 300F at most by the time its leaving, and not more than 150F at the edges of the building.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

1) the heat inside the building would make it impossible for a human to make it from the stairs or the elevator to the opening and

no, temperature is different from heat, the air may be 500F degrees, but, there is little heat in hot air, because it has very little mass (and other molecular things that are to complex to get into) bottom line, the amount of energy in hot air is little, it takes a lot of it to heat an object, it will be very uncomfortable, but not impossible. also air is a poor conductor of heat, meaning that it does not transfer heat well, this is why you can move your hand over a candle, it has a high temperature, but does not transfer it well, and if you leave your hand over a candle you will burn your self, but if you move it slowly over, the amount of energy does not build fast enough in your hand to raise its temperature high enough to burn you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

2) most of the heat and exhaust from the flames would be pouring out of the opening?

it really depends on the lay out of the floor, if there was a clear path from the outside to the fire and back out, and the wind was blowing that direction, then yes, but if there was not a clear path, the fire would burn inside and not be blown out by the wind. From the videos I have seen, the wind was blowing strong, but there was no easy path over the fire, that is why the smoke was just billowing out the sides, and not rushing out. Most of the heat was staying at the center, not flowing out, only the air was moving the heat out, and air does not carry much heat at all. As is evident by the people wearing jackets on the out side, it was cold or not very warm by the time it got to them.

Willravel · 09-10-2006, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567

correct, but I don’t think the beam reached 1500F, from what I’ve read it was about half as hot as that.

Well, I guess the pecimist side is just like the comspiracy side: we don't have a single theory. That makes sense, of course, but it's something to bear in mind. Not all 9/11 truth spreaders tell the same story.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567

The difficulty experienced with breathing is due to the differences in temperature of the air in your lung and the air out side, if you’ve ever worked with a kiln, you will realize that when you are around that much heat for a while, its not to much harder to breath, nothing compared to the initial trouble.

To a point, the temperature of the air doesn't matter. It should be said that there are limits, though. Taking into account that human flesh can only survive up to a certian temperature (I'm still looking for that temperature, espically for the more fragile lung tissue and brachioles). If you've ever been in a room that's on fire, you know that the air can easily be too hot to breathe. This superfire that brought down two of the best steel reinforced buildings ever built in about a n hour should be pretty damn hot. How hot? That depends on who you ask. Some people say 1500F, some people say 500F. I think that if we are assuming the fire did bring down the building, it was damned hot - probably closer to the 1500F number than the 500F.

I think we should agree on a temperature, and then also agree on how how the air peoplke breathe can be before closing this discussion point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567

The center of the oven would be that hot, not the sides, you probably know that ovens don’t all heat evenly, if you place 2 baking pans in with cookies, you need to rotate them half way through for them to cook properly. The source of heat was the fire, and it heated everything at the center, the air is easy to heat, and does not reduce the amount of heat the fire is generating much, the steel beams how ever do absorbed much more, the air is cycling through, so it never gets really hot before it cycles out of the building, maybe 300F at most by the time its leaving, and not more than 150F at the edges of the building.

We don't know where the fires were. While overall the center might have been more hot, we simply don't know. We don't know how much air was cycling through.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567

no, temperature is different from heat, the air may be 500 degrees, but, there is little heat in hot air, because it has very little mass (and other molecular things that are to complex to get into) bottom line, the amount of energy in hot air is little, it takes a lot of it to heat an object, it will be very uncomfortable, but not impossible. also air is a poor conductor of heat, meaning that it does not transfer heat well, this is why you can move your hand over a candle, it has a high temperature, but does not transfer it well, and if you leave your hand over a candle you will burn your self, but if you move it slowly over, the amount of energy does not build fast enough in your hand to raise its temperature high enough to burn you.

Hahaha, I know temperature is different than heat, but I'm trying to make this argument in as simple terms as I can. Fire spreads heat through solid, liquid or gas. Yes, it moves through them each with different efficency, but it does heat them all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567

it really depends on the lay out of the floor, if there was a clear path from the outside to the fire and back out, and the wind was blowing that direction, then yes, but if there was not a clear path, the fire would burn inside and not be blown out by the wind. From the videos I have seen, the wind was blowing strong, but there was no easy path over the fire, that is why the smoke was just billowing out the sides, and not rushing out. Most of the heat was staying at the center, not flowing out, only the air was moving the heat out, and air does not carry much heat at all. As is evident by the people wearing jackets on the out side, it was cold or not very warm by the time it got to them.

Air doesn't move heat as well as metal, but it sure does move flames and smoke. The smoke it moved was initially black, but quickly turned grey, and the flames died down pretty quickly aswell. That, in addition to the workers, suggests that the temperature started very hot, and slowly cooled down. Also, there was a fire suppression system in the WTC, and it didn't completly 'malfunction' like in WTC7. I'm sure you've put a hot pan under the water faucet to see it cool off in a few seconds.

Dilbert1234567 · 09-10-2006, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Well, I guess the pecimist side is just like the comspiracy side: we don't have a single theory. That makes sense, of course, but it's something to bear in mind. Not all 9/11 truth spreaders tell the same story.

With anything of this magnitude, there will always be questions, which girder failed first, which floor was it on, how hot were the fires, etc… however, some things are clear, it was not space aliens, it was not Vikings, nor rabid weasels.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

To a point, the temperature of the air doesn't matter. It should be said that there are limits, though. Taking into account that human flesh can only survive up to a certian temperature (I'm still looking for that temperature, espically for the more fragile lung tissue and brachioles). If you've ever been in a room that's on fire, you know that the air can easily be too hot to breathe. This superfire that brought down two of the best steel reinforced buildings ever built in about a n hour should be pretty damn hot. How hot? That depends on who you ask. Some people say 1500F, some people say 500F. I think that if we are assuming the fire did bring down the building, it was damned hot - probably closer to the 1500F number than the 500F.

I would agree that it was closer to 1500C, but I use 500C as a low bound I’m sure it was hotter then that, and 500C is all the heat I need on the beam to show a good cause of the failure of the building.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I think we should agree on a temperature, and then also agree on how how the air peoplke breathe can be before closing this discussion point.

It’s hard to agree on a temperature, in any investigation, it needs to be a range of possibilities, at least 500C, but no more than 1500C

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

We don't know where the fires were. While overall the center might have been more hot, we simply don't know. We don't know how much air was cycling through.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._Locations.jpg
from this illustration of the impacts, you can see that WTC 1 was hit and the plane dumped its fuel over the 60 foot beams, as for WTC 2 it is very possible that the fuel was spilled over the eastern 60 foot beams, at least the southern part of it. this center of heat would have stretched the beams nearest more then those farther away, causing the beams to fall off of there gusset plates, casing large support beams to fail.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Hahaha, I know temperature is different than heat, but I'm trying to make this argument in as simple terms as I can. Fire spreads heat through solid, liquid or gas. Yes, it moves through them each with different efficency, but it does heat them all.

Air doesn't move heat as well as metal, but it sure does move flames and smoke. The smoke it moved was initially black, but quickly turned grey, and the flames died down pretty quickly aswell. That, in addition to the workers, suggests that the temperature started very hot, and slowly cooled down. Also, there was a fire suppression system in the WTC, and it didn't completely 'malfunction' like in WTC7. I'm sure you've put a hot pan under the water faucet to see it cool off in a few seconds.

I had heard that the fire suppression failed completely, how ever, if it was partially active, that could make matters worse, by cooling parts of the building it would exasperated the difference in temperature across the deferent beams, causing a larger length difference than I had calculated. As I already showed, a difference of 231.5 C will cause the beam to fall off of the gusset plates.

One quick change, in my previous post, I meant to use Celsius, not Fahrenheit

Willravel · 09-10-2006, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567

With anything of this magnitude, there will always be questions, which girder failed first, which floor was it on, how hot were the fires, etc… however, some things are clear, it was not space aliens, it was not Vikings, nor rabid weasels.

It's good to know we have common ground. While the weasels have been responsible for such things as Woodstock, the invention of the telephone, and the building of the pyramids, they probably had nothing to do with the collapse of the WTC buildings, the Pentagon, or the other crash.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567

I would agree that it was closer to 1500C, but I use 500C as a low bound I’m sure it was hotter then that, and 500C is all the heat I need on the beam to show a good cause of the failure of the building.

Yeah, I meant celcius, too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567

It’s hard to agree on a temperature, in any investigation, it needs to be a range of possibilities, at least 500C, but no more than 1500C.

Well, if they had investigated the debris from the WTC instead of shipping it all off, we might have an answer. I think something has to be said about that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._Locations.jpg
from this illustration of the impacts, you can see that WTC 1 was hit and the plane dumped its fuel over the 60 foot beams, as for WTC 2 it is very possible that the fuel was spilled over the eastern 60 foot beams, at least the southern part of it. this center of heat would have stretched the beams nearest more then those farther away, causing the beams to fall off of there gusset plates, casing large support beams to fail.

The strange thing is, logic would dictate that more fuel was able to explode outward, burning off instantly and causeing the explosions we've seen in the videos. The explosion basically went right out the windows. Tower 2 fell faster than tower 1.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567

I had heard that the fire suppression failed completely, how ever, if it was partially active, that could make matters worse, by cooling parts of the building it would exasperated the difference in temperature across the deferent beams, causing a larger length difference than I had calculated. As I already showed, a difference of 231.5 C will cause the beam to fall off of the gusset plates.

Then I explained that the outward expansion would actually make the beam connections stronger against the outside supports.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567

One quick change, in my previous post, I meant to use Celsius, not Fahrenheit

Yeah, me too.

Dilbert1234567 · 09-10-2006, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

It's good to know we have common ground. While the weasels have been responsible for such things as Woodstock, the invention of the telephone, and the building of the pyramids, they probably had nothing to do with the collapse of the WTC buildings, the Pentagon, or the other crash.

the Rand Corporation, in conjunction with the saucer people, under the supervision of the reverse vampires...

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Well, if they had investigated the debris from the WTC instead of shipping it all off, we might have an answer. I think something has to be said about that.

You could not gather what temperature the fires burned at from the rubble, to many variables to deal with.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

The strange thing is, logic would dictate that more fuel was able to explode outward, burning off instantly and causeing the explosions we've seen in the videos. The explosion basically went right out the windows. Tower 2 fell faster than tower 1.

Tower 2 was hit in the corner of the central supports, weakening it more then the first tower, the fire was the ultimate cause, but the second tower was more damaged to begin with.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Then I explained that the outward expansion would actually make the beam connections stronger against the outside supports.

Unfortunately, no it would not. As the beams expanded, they push the outer wall out; therefore, instead of the floors above being directly above, they are at an angle, albeit slight, this weakens the structure severely. Just as my old soda can example, you can stand on a soda can, as long as the sides are perfect, as soon as you warp one, the can will collapse, just like the building.

ASU2003 · 09-10-2006, 07:29 PM

While it was talked about a while ago, I wasn't able to get Verizon service to work when I was flying an America West flight into Columbus, OH. I forgot to turn off my phone until they said to turn off electronics when landing. When I looked at it, the no service text was displayed.

fastom · 09-10-2006, 10:20 PM

Too bad you folks couldn't get to see the several special TV programs about 9/11 on CBC tonight. Some pretty good stuff. They talk to and hear stories of government ineptitude from survivors, rescuers, the EPA, the hospitals, and government officials themselves.

They talk to Dylan Avery who comes across as sincere and the dude from Popular Mechanics (McQuack or something... i'll try and forget his name) who seem like another Bush apologist. The victims included 24 Canadians, some of whom are pretty determined to find out the truth.

It'll be interesting watching from the sidelines here when the US government does finally topple. I hope for the sake of all you folks some of their real doomsday plans don't get implemented.
(i won't mention them, that's perhaps another thread)

Ch'i · 09-10-2006, 10:28 PM

I have a few back-up countries in case this one goes strait to shit.
1) Austrailia
2) Iceland
3) Christmas Island
The worse it gets the more remote.

Dilbert1234567 · 09-11-2006, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fastom

Too bad you folks couldn't get to see the several special TV programs about 9/11 on CBC tonight. Some pretty good stuff. They talk to and hear stories of government ineptitude from survivors, rescuers, the EPA, the hospitals, and government officials themselves.

They talk to Dylan Avery who comes across as sincere and the dude from Popular Mechanics (McQuack or something... i'll try and forget his name) who seem like another Bush apologist. The victims included 24 Canadians, some of whom are pretty determined to find out the truth.

It'll be interesting watching from the sidelines here when the US government does finally topple. I hope for the sake of all you folks some of their real doomsday plans don't get implemented.
(i won't mention them, that's perhaps another thread)

Unfortunately for you, ineptitude, is not a form of guilt, yes, a lot of mistakes were made on 9/11, and before, but that does not mean that it was an inside job, people are fallible, people screwed up, but the fact remains, planes hit the towers, and they fell because of them. It’s obvious that you hate the current American government, that’s ok, but you should recognize that even though they are a bunch of idiots, they did not cause the towers to fall. Further more, interviews are great for TV, but personal experiences are anecdotal evidence, the worst kind of evidence. Even if 1000 people saw a missile hit the WTC 1, the video evidence shows a plane, not a missile, and there for, the 1000 people are mistaken, and a plane hit it.

Willravel · 09-11-2006, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567

Unfortunately for you, ineptitude, is not a form of guilt, yes, a lot of mistakes were made on 9/11, and before, but that does not mean that it was an inside job, people are fallible, people screwed up, but the fact remains, planes hit the towers, and they fell because of them. It’s obvious that you hate the current American government, that’s ok, but you should recognize that even though they are a bunch of idiots, they did not cause the towers to fall. Further more, interviews are great for TV, but personal experiences are anecdotal evidence, the worst kind of evidence. Even if 1000 people saw a missile hit the WTC 1, the video evidence shows a plane, not a missile, and there for, the 1000 people are mistaken, and a plane hit it.

You used 11 commas in your first sentence. What's up with that? Maybe it's a conspiracy to create run on sentences and destroy the period as we know it forever.

/end grammar Nazism

All of the videos of the 9/11 crash were shotty, that might explain why multiple cameras from different locations and people who've never met all saw something attached tom the hull of the plane that crashed.

biznatch · 09-11-2006, 12:39 PM

I'd just like to give my blessings to the victims and their families, 5 years after the events.

Kaliena · 09-11-2006, 04:27 PM

I'm just curious about the video of the plane into the Pentagon. Why is there only one video considering that place is basted in video/survaliance?

Willravel · 09-11-2006, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaliena

I'm just curious about the video of the plane into the Pentagon. Why is there only one video considering that place is basted in video/survaliance?

Only one video was released initially to the AP, then another was released a few months back. Both are obviously of tremendously low quality, and are of questionable authenticity. At least 84 videos exist that show what struck the Pentagon. At least 82 videos are classified and there are no plans to release them in the near future.

Dilbert1234567 · 09-11-2006, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

You used 11 commas in your first sentence. What's up with that? Maybe it's a conspiracy to create run on sentences and destroy the period as we know it forever.

Yeah, my English teacher hates me for that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

All of the videos of the 9/11 crash were shotty, that might explain why multiple cameras from different locations and people who've never met all saw something attached tom the hull of the plane that crashed.

Which was later shown to only be a shadow.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Only one video was released initially to the AP, then another was released a few months back. Both are obviously of tremendously low quality, and are of questionable authenticity. At least 84 videos exist that show what struck the Pentagon. At least 82 videos are classified and there are no plans to release them in the near future.

I would assume that they are stating grounds of nation security, and I think they are partly right, by releasing the locations of all the cameras; they would be making the complex unsecured. However, I think more then the 2 angles should be released.

ASU2003 · 09-11-2006, 06:58 PM

The only reason I see for them to hold the tapes from being released is that they don't want them shown all over the world and to be used in anti-US propaganda films. However, I would like to see the tapes, they should show them to the military and people who work for the military.

One other thing I thought about today, if there had been explosives placed in the towers, why wouldn't have the impact of the planes set off the charges right near the spot of entry? That is where the towers collapsed from, and it would have been hard to have wireless explosives detonated right in that location wouldn't have it (with the fire and heat and all? The conspiracy theory that the planes were remote controlled into the exact floor by fly-by-wire would be possible, but having the charges exactly at the floor below the impact might be risky if it would have gone off right away. However, maybe there were people watching the towers and they had placed the charges well below the point of entry. Then as soon as the building started to collapse, they blew the charges to make the building fall straight down. Then again, this is getting a little too complicated...

fastom · 09-11-2006, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567

Further more, interviews are great for TV, but personal experiences are anecdotal evidence, the worst kind of evidence. Even if 1000 people saw a missile hit the WTC 1, the video evidence shows a plane, not a missile, and there for, the 1000 people are mistaken, and a plane hit it.

Anecdotal evidence? Video can be much more easily manipulated than many eyewitnesses.
I agree people don't always see things correctly. Five witnesses to a car accident can have five different versions, but if all five saw the blue car run the red light don't you maybe think....

Cynthetiq · 09-12-2006, 02:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

The source of the heat was the fire, not the beams. In order for the beams to be 1,500F, the fire needs to be at least that hot consistently enough for the heat to be transfered across the system of steel beams. Have you ever opened your stove at 500F? It's really hot. So hot that one would have difficulty breathing if one stuck his head too close to the open stove. Imagine that stove was 100,000 square feet, was over 3 times as hot as that 500F stove, and the only real opening was a hole about the size of a plane and was pretty far from any entrance/exit. Wouldn't you guess that:
1) the heat inside the building would make it impossible for a human to make it from the stairs or the elevator to the opening and
2) most of the heat and exhaust from the flames would be pouring out of the opening?

you don't remember the people jumping out of the building????

Dilbert1234567 · 09-12-2006, 05:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fastom

Anecdotal evidence? Video can be much more easily manipulated than many eyewitnesses.
I agree people don't always see things correctly. Five witnesses to a car accident can have five different versions, but if all five saw the blue car run the red light don't you maybe think....

if the traffic camera says a red vw bug, then it was a vw bug. People make mistakes, even in large groups. When lots of adrenalin and panic is involved, memories get distorted.

Take this example, 3 cars, a red vw bug, a blue car, and a van. The van enters the intersection going north, with the blue car a bit behind it. The red VW bug runs the light smashing into the van; the van spins 90 degrees and comes to a stop. The red VW bug takes off but the blue car was not paying attention and broad sides the van, and gets stuck in it. Several witnesses are around, one person actually sees the bug hit the van out of the comer of his eye, as the blue car is about to hit, he yells, “OMG the blue car is going to hit that van”. Everyone else looks up in time to see the blue car smash the van. Everyone thinks they saw what happened, but no one really did. No one but the traffic camera saw the hummer push the VW bug into the intersection, a failed mob hit.

Anecdotal evidence is the weakest form of evidence. It is easily manipulated, by all the media coverage. We both see the video of the towers collapse, where I see dust shooting out because of the falling floors, you see explosive charges placed, because you read it on some website, claiming to be an expert demolitions.

(Ok, ok I 'm not going to quit my day job and write mystery novels)

Willravel · 09-12-2006, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

you don't remember the people jumping out of the building????

Numerous people heard explosions before the collapse, some even before the planes hit the building. It could have been an explosions that caused them to jump.

stevo · 09-12-2006, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Numerous people heard explosions before the collapse, some even before the planes hit the building. It could have been an explosions that caused them to jump.

Will, it was litterally raining bodies. Every minute another person decided to jump to their death rather than burn alive. Without the sound of explosions there are the sounds of bodies smashing into the ground. Some were charred - that is were burning alive and decided to jump. I suggest you watch the documentary by Jules and Gedeon Naudet. Look for it, you'll find it. I doubt it would change your mind about any of this, but maybe it will ground you in the reality of the situation instead of using every aspect of that horrible day as some kind of evidence of your grand conspiracy.

Ustwo · 09-12-2006, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Numerous people heard explosions before the collapse, some even before the planes hit the building. It could have been an explosions that caused them to jump.

Yea I know when I hear an explosion I jump to my death!

This is getting fucking stupid.

Willravel · 09-12-2006, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

Will, it was litterally raining bodies. Every minute another person decided to jump to their death rather than burn alive. Without the sound of explosions there are the sounds of bodies smashing into the ground. Some were charred - that is were burning alive and decided to jump. I suggest you watch the documentary by Jules and Gedeon Naudet. Look for it, you'll find it. I doubt it would change your mind about any of this, but maybe it will ground you in the reality of the situation instead of using every aspect of that horrible day as some kind of evidence of your grand conspiracy.

Speaking of grounding in reality, I doubt you've ever spoken to any of the jumpers so you are not qualified to give a conclusive statement like the one you gave above. Yes, some of them were charred, but does that mean they were all jumping to avoid the fire? Not necessarily. It's one explaination, but there exists no conclusive evidence as to their reasoning.

I've seen every 9/11 documentary, including the Naudet documentary on CBS. I also know about the bizarre luck involved in Jiles Naudet's filming, but I won't go into that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Yea I know when I hear an explosion I jump to my death!

This is getting fucking stupid.

Would you jump to your death if you were on fire? It's the same basic concept.

Ustwo, your post content is nonexistant. You're response based jabs are useless and are blatently flaming no matter in Politics or Paranoia, and because of them no one on the left and very few on the right take you seriously. If you would stop for even a moment, you could actually contribute. You could learn quite a bit from stevo on the matter. He disagrees with me completly, but actually have relevant content in his posts. For that I respect him. For that I engage him in discussion.

Ustwo · 09-12-2006, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Would you jump to your death if you were on fire? It's the same basic concept.

Ustwo, your post content is nonexistant. You're response based jabs are useless and are blatently flaming no matter in Politics or Paranoia, and because of them no one on the left and very few on the right take you seriously. If you would stop for even a moment, you could actually contribute. You could learn quite a bit from stevo on the matter. He disagrees with me completly, but actually have relevant content in his posts. For that I respect him. For that I engage him in discussion.

People have been known to jump rather than die in a fire yes, its a common thing, I dont' know where you get your information on these things. If you heard an explosion in a building would you jump out to die for sure? Fuck no, at least not a sane person. An explosion does not mean the building is going to fall for sure, but jumping means you are dead for sure.

I don't care what you think of me, I think very little of you in this. You use warped logic to prove an absurd point on a sensative issue. I saw those people jump will while you were in highschool and I'd assume your drug period. It wasn't due to any fucking explosions.

stevo · 09-12-2006, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Ustwo, your post content is nonexistant. You're response based jabs are useless and are blatently flaming no matter in Politics or Paranoia, and because of them no one on the left and very few on the right take you seriously. If you would stop for even a moment, you could actually contribute. You could learn quite a bit from stevo on the matter. He disagrees with me completly, but actually have relevant content in his posts. For that I respect him. For that I engage him in discussion.

You don't know how many posts I don't submit. Its amazing to me the extent to which dilbert has gone to show you that its not only probable, but likely the buildings fell because of the planes and subsequent fires, yet you refuse to believe it. Refuse to give any weight to his arguements because you go on to try to find another excuse, another reason why it not be like it is. There is always something else for you, another tragic moment of that day you try to fit into your little conspiracy. Its beyond sick, will. beyond.

Dilbert1234567 · 09-12-2006, 08:31 AM

lets pick apart why we would jump, if i was on fire, or in serious pain, I would jump to end it, other than that, there is no reason to jump, if an explosion goes off, obviously I survived it, or else I would not be thinking, so if I’m not in danger of being in horrible pain, why jump, there is still hope of rescue, the only reason for suicide is to escape pain (mental or physical). As for the explosions, it is reasonable to say they were (if there were explosions) compressed office supplies,: fire extinguishers, 'can o air' etc maybe some one on the floor had an O2 tank for medical purposes, there are hundreds of reasons people heard explosions, much more likely then explosive charges. I bet a monitor will make a nice loud BANG if you put it in a fire.

ASU2003 · 09-12-2006, 08:34 AM

I think they were jumping because there was too much smoke and they couldn't breathe. Not because of the temperatures. I watched the video yesterday and they followed one guy down in a bright white business shirt. The temperature was not hot enough to catch his shirt on fire.

Leto · 09-12-2006, 08:42 AM

Watch the documentary shown on the Passionate Eye earlier this week called the Falling Man. link: http://www.cbc.ca/passionateeyemonday/fallingman/ (for a description)

Especially the interview of a man who's wife's body was found close by the building. It gives a rather poignant view on why somebody would jump to their certain death.

The documentary also explores the attempted identification of the iconic "falling man" and the religious ramification from his family.

I think that the sound of a building in destruction will be fairly noisy.

here is a brief discussion from the site: http://www.cbc.ca/passionateeyemonda...n/jumpers.html

THE 9/11 Jumpers
When American Airlines flight 11 hit the north tower of the World Trade Center at 8:45, the plane cut a swath through floors 93 to 99. It ripped through elevator shafts and left emergency exits impassable. The huge fire spread fast and smoke plumed up through the ventilation shafts to the floors above. Nearly 1000 people were trapped with no exit.

People inside the building inundated the emergency services with calls for help. Some tried to escape to the roof but found the access doors locked. Rescue from the top of the building would have been impossible because helicopters couldn't land in the thick billowing smoke.

Desperate for air, the survivors started to break windows on the upper floors. But the oxygen from outside only fed the fire and made the situation inside the tower worse. Many people decided that there was only one option left. Not long after the first plane hit the World Trade Center people in the top floors began to jump out.

New York Times Reporter, Eric Lipton Eric Lipton, a reporter for the New York Times witnessed the scene. "You're able to see more and more people assembling at the windows as time is passing, not only assembled but they're stacked up against each other. Imagine leaning out of the hundredth and ninth floor of the World Trade Center, no rational person would do that."

Then the unimaginable happened. At 9:03 am a second plane hit between the 78th and 84th floors of the south tower and another 600 people were trapped. One stairwell was left passable but only eighteen people from above the crash zone managed to escape down it.

Jack Gentual, dean of student services at the New Jersey Institute of Technology got a call from his wife Alayne who worked in the tower and was trapped on the 97th floor. "She told me smoke was coming in the room, coming through the vents, her breath was laboured ... She said to me 'I'm scared' and she wasn't a person who got scared. She said that she loved me and to tell the boys she loved them." Alayne told her husband that she was going to try to escape to the lower floors and that she would call later.

Alayne Gentual was trapped in the south tower when the second plane hit New York.But Gentual never heard from his wife again. Her body was found on the street in front of the building across from hers. He wonders if his wife was one of the many who decided to jump. "In some ways it might just be the last elements of control. To be out of the smoke and the heat, to be out in the air...it must have felt like flying."

For those who jumped, the fall lasted about ten seconds. The jumpers hit the ground at 240 kilometres a hour. It wasn't fast enough to cause unconsciousness while falling, but ensured instant death on impact.

Witnesses there that day say there was a constant stream of jumpers over the next hour and a half. They jumped alone, in pairs and in groups. Most of the jumpers came from the north tower where smoke was particularly dense and where there were more victims concentrated on fewer floors.

Well after 9/11, Tom Junod a writer from Esquire magazine contacted the coroner's office in New York and asked for a count of how many people jumped. He was told that nobody jumped. The official word was that victims were blown out or they were forced out, but nobody jumped. "There were just those things that day that you were supposed to see, you weren't supposed to say and you weren't supposed to talk about."

Now it's estimated that anywhere between 50 and 200 jumped out of the Trade Center that day, although experts believe that the higher number is more likely. If so, nearly 8% of those who died in New York on September 11th died by falling or jumping out of the buildings.

Richard Pecorella searches the internet for photos of the last moments of his partner's life.Richard Pecorella lost his partner that day and was desperate to find out how she met her end. He scoured the internet looking for photos and found one of a jumper with the same clothes and shape and believes that she must have jumped. "Nothing is more painful than losing her but not knowing how I lost her was even more painful, so now that I believe that that's what took place, it's not painful for me to talk about."

The people who jumped from the World Trade Center that morning were the only visible fatalities in the day that claimed thousands.

Ustwo · 09-12-2006, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASU2003

I think they were jumping because there was too much smoke and they couldn't breathe. Not because of the temperatures. I watched the video yesterday and they followed one guy down in a bright white business shirt. The temperature was not hot enough to catch his shirt on fire.

People don't jump when they burst into flames, they jump prior to avoid being cooked alive. If it was smoke and you were at a window, would you jump out?

Willravel · 09-12-2006, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

People have been known to jump rather than die in a fire yes, its a common thing, I dont' know where you get your information on these things. If you heard an explosion in a building would you jump out to die for sure? Fuck no, at least not a sane person. An explosion does not mean the building is going to fall for sure, but jumping means you are dead for sure.

The same can be said of fire. Yes, I'm on fire, but fire means being burned vs. jumping from the WTC means certian death.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I don't care what you think of me, I think very little of you in this. You use warped logic to prove an absurd point on a sensative issue. I saw those people jump will while you were in highschool and I'd assume your drug period. It wasn't due to any fucking explosions.

I don't care what you think of me, but you're ruining TFP for a lot of people by making simple, snide remarks, baiting, flaming, and personal attakcs instead of posting backable arguments and conclusions. I saw those people jump on the same channels everyone one else was watching on 9/11. Also, I didn't do drugs my senior year, but thanks for making my accusation true by attacking me instead of the information I post.

Seaver · 09-12-2006, 09:58 AM

Quote:

I don't care what you think of me, but you're ruining TFP for a lot of people by making simple, snide remarks, baiting, flaming, and personal attakcs instead of posting backable arguments and conclusions. I saw those people jump on the same channels everyone one else was watching on 9/11. Also, I didn't do drugs my senior year, but thanks for making my accusation true by attacking me instead of the information I post.

Will this is 12 pages full of information that shows how the towers were caused by planes, that how any detonations or conspiracy possibilities were not only improbable but nearly impossible. Yet you fire away to continue this discussion.

For the rest of us this is a painful disrespect to everyone involved in that day. For what? to say that the people who sacrificed their lives were part of the entity that caused it for no other reasons than to go to war.

Willravel · 09-12-2006, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Will this is 12 pages full of information that shows how the towers were caused by planes, that how any detonations or conspiracy possibilities were not only improbable but nearly impossible. Yet you fire away to continue this discussion.

There was a window in line with where the engine on the 757-200 that hit the Pentagon. That window was unbroken. The thing is that points acoss these 12 pages have been ignored. Again and again and again. I bring them up again and again and again. Untill all points are addressed, I don't really see the use in stopping.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

For the rest of us this is a painful disrespect to everyone involved in that day. For what? to say that the people who sacrificed their lives were part of the entity that caused it for no other reasons than to go to war.

It's disrespectful in my mind to ignore discrepencies. It's disrespectful in my mind to go to war in their name without even getting the story straight. But the most disrespectful thing of all? Speaking for the dead. I don't bring up the fact that I find this whole thing disrespectful because neither you nor I are qualified to speak for the 3000 someodd people that died. Their sacrafice (which isn't actually a sacrafice, sacrafice suggests the choice to give, and they did not choose to be in a terrorist attack) did lead us to war. It's really that simple.

stevo · 09-12-2006, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I don't bring up the fact that I find this whole thing disrespectful because neither you nor I are qualified to speak for the 3000 someodd people that died. Their sacrafice (which isn't actually a sacrafice, sacrafice suggests the choice to give, and they did not choose to be in a terrorist attack) did lead us to war. It's really that simple.

So you have no problem participating in thread after thread disrespecting the dead?

Willravel · 09-12-2006, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

So you have no problem participating in thread after thread disrespecting the dead?

I don't speak for the dead, I speak for myself and myself alone. The only time it really disrespects them is when someone tries to use their deaths to their argument's advantage. "How dare you say that when 3000 brave Americans gave their lives!!!" is a dumb thing to say. It proves nothing, and is an obvious tool to try and play on people's sympathies and distract from the facts. Arguments like that should be reserved for jackasses like Buill O'Reilly. I don't do that. I try to stick with facts. We can argue all day aobut what is or isn't disrespectful, but I think we'll find that day was wasted because we each have our own opinions about what does or doesn't constitute disrespect.

Leto · 09-12-2006, 11:12 AM

how about the topic? did anybody see the documentary called the Falling Man?

(sorry, my feable attempt to move this discussion along...)

Willravel · 09-12-2006, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leto

how about the topic? did anybody see the documentary called the Falling Man?

(sorry, my feable attempt to move this discussion along...)

Replace the word "feable" with "commendable".

The Falling Man was a photograph taken by Richar Drew at ground zero at 9:41 AM, 9/11. The photograph shows a man falling from one of the WTC towers. The documantary of the same name was played March 16, 2006 on BBC 4. It was also played later on CBC Newsworld (just recently, as I understand). It has yet to be played in the States. I found it on Google video some time ago, I'll look for it later. The documantary supposes the indentity of the man is John Briley a sound editor, but the identity of the man is still in question.

Cynthetiq · 09-12-2006, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Replace the word "feable" with "commendable".

The Falling Man was a photograph taken by Richar Drew at ground zero at 9:41 AM, 9/11. The photograph shows a man falling from one of the WTC towers. The documantary of the same name was played March 16, 2006 on BBC 4. It was also played later on CBC Newsworld (just recently, as I understand). It has yet to be played in the States. I found it on Google video some time ago, I'll look for it later. The documantary supposes the indentity of the man is John Briley a sound editor, but the identity of the man is still in question.

from your own weblink

Quote:

The subject was one of the people (dubbed "jumpers" by the press) trapped on the upper floors of the building who apparently chose to jump to certain death rather than die from the heat and smoke.

so who is speaking for the dead? you or them? you state that maybe they jumped because of explosions, they state that maybe they jumped because of fear of heat and smoke.

Which seems more likely and plausible?

I'm going to go with your thoughts as being more negative than the more positive.

Willravel · 09-12-2006, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

so who is speaking for the dead? you or them? you state that maybe they jumped because of explosions, they state that maybe they jumped because of fear of heat and smoke.

What I was communicating is we don't know what was going through their minds, so we can't say why they jumped conclusively. As evidence of this, I posted another possibility. I was trying to avoid speaking for the dead.

Dilbert1234567 · 09-12-2006, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I don't care what you think of me, I think very little of you in this. You use warped logic to prove an absurd point on a sensative issue. I saw those people jump will while you were in highschool and I'd assume your drug period. It wasn't due to any fucking explosions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I don't care what you think of me, but you're ruining TFP for a lot of people by making simple, snide remarks, baiting, flaming, and personal attakcs instead of posting backable arguments and conclusions. I saw those people jump on the same channels everyone one else was watching on 9/11. Also, I didn't do drugs my senior year, but thanks for making my accusation true by attacking me instead of the information I post.

Let’s try and stay civil ustwo, you too willravel. Every so often some one post a snide remark like that, the drug use was totally uncalled for, but none the less, just let it roll off of your back

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Will this is 12 pages full of information that shows how the towers were caused by planes, that how any detonations or conspiracy possibilities were not only improbable but nearly impossible. Yet you fire away to continue this discussion.

For the rest of us this is a painful disrespect to everyone involved in that day. For what? To say that the people who sacrificed their lives were part of the entity that caused it for no other reasons than to go to war.

If wills not convinced yet, I’m not done yet. And they did not sacrifice themselves, they were killed / murdered. And although it did lead us to war, it is still not certain that we would not have gone to war even if 9/11 did not happen, I think even if there was no 9/11 we would still be in Iraq, just because of the leadership in the white house, not that I agree with it one bit, but it would be going a lot better in Iraq, we would not be spread in Afghanistan as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

What I was communicating is we don't know what was going through their minds, so we can't say why they jumped conclusively. As evidence of this, I posted another possibility. I was trying to avoid speaking for the dead.

I think it is pretty obvious, the fire and smoke would be unbearable in some locations, and it would get to a point where death would be more welcomed then slowly suffocating and baking to death. There is a point for everyone when they say I’d prefer death rather then torture.

One thing about anecdotal evidence, sometimes it is twisted, distorted and interpreted wrong, Mike Walter is often quoted by conspiracy theorist as saying a cruise missile hit the pentagon… he said it but it was taken way out of context,

Quote:

Originally Posted by http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/conspiracy_cranks_opedcolumnists_james_b__meigs.htm

Here's one example: Meyssan and hundreds of Web sites cite an eyewitness who said the craft that hit the Pentagon looked "like a cruise missile with wings." Here's what that witness, a Washington, D.C., broadcaster named Mike Walter, actually told CNN: "I looked out my window and I saw this plane, this jet, an American Airlines jet, coming. And I thought, 'This doesn't add up. It's really low.' And I saw it. I mean, it was like a cruise missile with wings. It went right there and slammed right into the Pentagon."

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

There was a window in line with where the engine on the 757-200 that hit the Pentagon. That window was unbroken. The thing is that points acoss these 12 pages have been ignored.

its not ignored, it is lost:

prilimanary explination: the pentagon is designed to survive a military strike

extended explination:

Quote:

Originally Posted by http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/11/28/60II/main319383.shtml

...because his floor was reinforced and held up for half an hour. In an astonishing stroke of luck, the terrorists had hit the only section of the Pentagon designed to resist a terrorist attack.

"We made several modifications to the building as part of that renovation that we think helped save people's lives," says Lee Evey, who runs a billion-dollar project to renovate the Pentagon. They’ve been working on it since 1993. The first section was five days from being finished when the terrorists hit it with the plane.

The renovation project built strength into the 60-year-old limestone exterior with a web of steel beams and columns.

"You have these steel tubes and, again, they go from the first floor and go all the way to the fifth floor," says Evey. "We have everything bolted together in a strong steel matrix. It supports and encases the windows and provides tremendous additional strength to the wall."

When the plane hit at 350 miles an hour, the limestone layer shattered. But inside, those shards of stone were caught by a shield of cloth that lines the entire section of the building.

It is a special cloth that helps prevent masonry from fragmenting and turning into shrapnel. The cloth is also used to make bullet-resistant vests.

All of this, especially the steel, held up the third, fourth and fifth floors. They stayed up for 35 minutes. You can see them through the smoke, suspended over the hole gouged by the jet. Only after the evacuation did the heat melt the new steel away. Evey says that without the reconstruction, the floors might have collapseimmediately...

Quote:

Originally Posted by http://www.architectureweek.com/2001/1003/news_1-2.html

The blast-resistant windows were nearly two inches (5 centimeters) thick. Some of them remain remarkably intact and in place adjacent the point of impact. Some were popped out of their frames by the force of the exploding jet fuel, but they fell without breaking or splintering.

hope that helps willravel

lastly, i'd like to appologise to willravel, i've been calling him willTravel all this time.

Willravel · 09-12-2006, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567

If wills not convinced yet, I’m not done yet. And they did not sacrifice themselves, they were killed / murdered. And although it did lead us to war, it is still not certain that we would not have gone to war even if 9/11 did not happen, I think even if there was no 9/11 we would still be in Iraq, just because of the leadership in the white house, not that I agree with it one bit, but it would be going a lot better in Iraq, we would not be spread in Afghanistan as well.

I'm not sure the white house could have rallied support for the invasion of Iraq without the galvanizing events on 9/11, but that is or another thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567

One thing about anecdotal evidence, sometimes it is twisted, distorted and interpreted wrong, Mike Walter is often quoted by conspiracy theorist as saying a cruise missile hit the pentagon… he said it but it was taken way out of context,

This missle theory is based on the size of the entrance hole, the apparent lack of debris (which is an arguable point), and the circular hole in the rear that was only recently connected with the landing gear. Up until the recent Pop Mech 9/11 Conspiracy Theory book, the only story about the rear hole that's backable by testimony has been that it was created by the nose of the plane. I think we can all agree that the nose of the plane didn't make the rear hole, but it's arguable what did. The landing gear is a much more likely explaination that the nosecone, but the landing gear traveling so muhc farther than the engines is highly suspect. One landing arm cashes through sodozens of feet of steel reinforced concrete, but the other landing gear and the eingines don't even make it out of the first wing? I dunno, but that sounds suspecious. Add to that the testimony of the firefighters on the scene who said they saw what looked like the ffront of the plane, and we have a very confusing situation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567

prilimanary explination: the pentagon is designed to survive a military strike

Oh dear. Tow inches of blast proof glass can withstand the direct impact of a titanium and aluminum engine traveling at 500+ mph speeds? Somehow I doubt that, espically when windows not in the direct path of the plane were broken from the explosion or the heat from the fire. That is a massive inconsistency of strength that was never addressed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567

lastly, i'd like to appologise to willravel, i've been calling him willTravel all this time.

Oh don't worry about it. I didn't realize the second part of your screen name was 1234567 until this every moment. I just cut and pasted it.

Will = my first name, Ravel = Maurice Ravel, one of my favorite composers of french romantic music.

Leto · 09-12-2006, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Will = my first name, Ravel = Maurice Ravel, one of my favorite composers of french romantic music.

a bit off topic (ok a lot off topic) but my fav number for a few years back in 1980 was 17.36 the number of minutes that the Bolero (by Ravel) took to play and which was used to great effect in the movie '10'

ahhh... Bo (lero) Derek..... and the world's longest crescendo...

09-11-2006, 04:27 PM	#452 (permalink)
Kaliena Crazy Location: Pennsylvania, USA	I'm just curious about the video of the plane into the Pentagon. Why is there only one video considering that place is basted in video/survaliance? __________________ ~Beware the waffle~

09-11-2006, 06:58 PM	#455 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	The only reason I see for them to hold the tapes from being released is that they don't want them shown all over the world and to be used in anti-US propaganda films. However, I would like to see the tapes, they should show them to the military and people who work for the military. One other thing I thought about today, if there had been explosives placed in the towers, why wouldn't have the impact of the planes set off the charges right near the spot of entry? That is where the towers collapsed from, and it would have been hard to have wireless explosives detonated right in that location wouldn't have it (with the fire and heat and all? The conspiracy theory that the planes were remote controlled into the exact floor by fly-by-wire would be possible, but having the charges exactly at the floor below the impact might be risky if it would have gone off right away. However, maybe there were people watching the towers and they had placed the charges well below the point of entry. Then as soon as the building started to collapse, they blew the charges to make the building fall straight down. Then again, this is getting a little too complicated... Last edited by ASU2003; 09-11-2006 at 07:02 PM..

09-12-2006, 08:31 AM	#465 (permalink)
Dilbert1234567 Devils Cabana Boy Location: Central Coast CA	lets pick apart why we would jump, if i was on fire, or in serious pain, I would jump to end it, other than that, there is no reason to jump, if an explosion goes off, obviously I survived it, or else I would not be thinking, so if I’m not in danger of being in horrible pain, why jump, there is still hope of rescue, the only reason for suicide is to escape pain (mental or physical). As for the explosions, it is reasonable to say they were (if there were explosions) compressed office supplies,: fire extinguishers, 'can o air' etc maybe some one on the floor had an O2 tank for medical purposes, there are hundreds of reasons people heard explosions, much more likely then explosive charges. I bet a monitor will make a nice loud BANG if you put it in a fire. __________________ Donate Blood! "Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

09-12-2006, 08:42 AM	#467 (permalink)
Leto Junkie Location: The Danforth	Watch the documentary shown on the Passionate Eye earlier this week called the Falling Man. link: http://www.cbc.ca/passionateeyemonday/fallingman/ (for a description) Especially the interview of a man who's wife's body was found close by the building. It gives a rather poignant view on why somebody would jump to their certain death. The documentary also explores the attempted identification of the iconic "falling man" and the religious ramification from his family. I think that the sound of a building in destruction will be fairly noisy. here is a brief discussion from the site: http://www.cbc.ca/passionateeyemonda...n/jumpers.html THE 9/11 Jumpers When American Airlines flight 11 hit the north tower of the World Trade Center at 8:45, the plane cut a swath through floors 93 to 99. It ripped through elevator shafts and left emergency exits impassable. The huge fire spread fast and smoke plumed up through the ventilation shafts to the floors above. Nearly 1000 people were trapped with no exit. People inside the building inundated the emergency services with calls for help. Some tried to escape to the roof but found the access doors locked. Rescue from the top of the building would have been impossible because helicopters couldn't land in the thick billowing smoke. Desperate for air, the survivors started to break windows on the upper floors. But the oxygen from outside only fed the fire and made the situation inside the tower worse. Many people decided that there was only one option left. Not long after the first plane hit the World Trade Center people in the top floors began to jump out. New York Times Reporter, Eric Lipton Eric Lipton, a reporter for the New York Times witnessed the scene. "You're able to see more and more people assembling at the windows as time is passing, not only assembled but they're stacked up against each other. Imagine leaning out of the hundredth and ninth floor of the World Trade Center, no rational person would do that." Then the unimaginable happened. At 9:03 am a second plane hit between the 78th and 84th floors of the south tower and another 600 people were trapped. One stairwell was left passable but only eighteen people from above the crash zone managed to escape down it. Jack Gentual, dean of student services at the New Jersey Institute of Technology got a call from his wife Alayne who worked in the tower and was trapped on the 97th floor. "She told me smoke was coming in the room, coming through the vents, her breath was laboured ... She said to me 'I'm scared' and she wasn't a person who got scared. She said that she loved me and to tell the boys she loved them." Alayne told her husband that she was going to try to escape to the lower floors and that she would call later. Alayne Gentual was trapped in the south tower when the second plane hit New York.But Gentual never heard from his wife again. Her body was found on the street in front of the building across from hers. He wonders if his wife was one of the many who decided to jump. "In some ways it might just be the last elements of control. To be out of the smoke and the heat, to be out in the air...it must have felt like flying." For those who jumped, the fall lasted about ten seconds. The jumpers hit the ground at 240 kilometres a hour. It wasn't fast enough to cause unconsciousness while falling, but ensured instant death on impact. Witnesses there that day say there was a constant stream of jumpers over the next hour and a half. They jumped alone, in pairs and in groups. Most of the jumpers came from the north tower where smoke was particularly dense and where there were more victims concentrated on fewer floors. Well after 9/11, Tom Junod a writer from Esquire magazine contacted the coroner's office in New York and asked for a count of how many people jumped. He was told that nobody jumped. The official word was that victims were blown out or they were forced out, but nobody jumped. "There were just those things that day that you were supposed to see, you weren't supposed to say and you weren't supposed to talk about." Now it's estimated that anywhere between 50 and 200 jumped out of the Trade Center that day, although experts believe that the higher number is more likely. If so, nearly 8% of those who died in New York on September 11th died by falling or jumping out of the buildings. Richard Pecorella searches the internet for photos of the last moments of his partner's life.Richard Pecorella lost his partner that day and was desperate to find out how she met her end. He scoured the internet looking for photos and found one of a jumper with the same clothes and shape and believes that she must have jumped. "Nothing is more painful than losing her but not knowing how I lost her was even more painful, so now that I believe that that's what took place, it's not painful for me to talk about." The people who jumped from the World Trade Center that morning were the only visible fatalities in the day that claimed thousands. Last edited by Leto; 09-12-2006 at 08:45 AM..

09-10-2006, 07:29 PM	#446 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	While it was talked about a while ago, I wasn't able to get Verizon service to work when I was flying an America West flight into Columbus, OH. I forgot to turn off my phone until they said to turn off electronics when landing. When I looked at it, the no service text was displayed.

09-10-2006, 10:20 PM	#447 (permalink)
fastom Psycho Location: way out west	Too bad you folks couldn't get to see the several special TV programs about 9/11 on CBC tonight. Some pretty good stuff. They talk to and hear stories of government ineptitude from survivors, rescuers, the EPA, the hospitals, and government officials themselves. They talk to Dylan Avery who comes across as sincere and the dude from Popular Mechanics (McQuack or something... i'll try and forget his name) who seem like another Bush apologist. The victims included 24 Canadians, some of whom are pretty determined to find out the truth. It'll be interesting watching from the sidelines here when the US government does finally topple. I hope for the sake of all you folks some of their real doomsday plans don't get implemented. (i won't mention them, that's perhaps another thread)

09-10-2006, 10:28 PM	#448 (permalink)
Ch'i Artist of Life	I have a few back-up countries in case this one goes strait to shit. 1) Austrailia 2) Iceland 3) Christmas Island The worse it gets the more remote.

09-11-2006, 12:39 PM	#451 (permalink)
biznatch Junkie Location: France	I'd just like to give my blessings to the victims and their families, 5 years after the events.

09-12-2006, 08:34 AM	#466 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	I think they were jumping because there was too much smoke and they couldn't breathe. Not because of the temperatures. I watched the video yesterday and they followed one guy down in a bright white business shirt. The temperature was not hot enough to catch his shirt on fire.

09-12-2006, 11:12 AM	#474 (permalink)
Leto Junkie Location: The Danforth	how about the topic? did anybody see the documentary called the Falling Man? (sorry, my feable attempt to move this discussion along...)